Was the moonlanding a hoax?

Question

people, im just exploring the possibilities of this stuff & wondering what you think - whats wrong with being inquirious?? I never said i had fallen for the hoax or anything- i never even stated my point of view. Just state your opinion- no need to be rude. thanks

Answer 1

The six Apollo Moon landings are among the best documented events in human history: thousands of pictures, hours of video, nearly half a ton of Moon rocks, and millions of eye witnesses, including myself. There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts that they took place. To deny them is to discredit the magnificent achievement of the team which went to the Moon, and to reveal abysmal scientific ignorance.

Rather than asking the same old questions here, how about doing some research yourself on these web sites:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxap...

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

http://www.clavius.org/

Answer 2

No, and this question gets asked several times a day.

Answer 3

It looks pretty real to me yet my skeptic side still tells me that it was somehow faked!

Answer 4

Do U think some how NASA could get 10,000 Eng. to lie???

Answer 5

Which is more probable?

We went to the moon with less computer power than a modern digital watch, and we're going again. Then to Mars and off to Zeta Reticuli.

or

Your government has sold you out and wants to force this on you:

http://www.verichipcorp.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gXGTcd6...

Check this out:

Lawn furniture or super groovy interplanetary spaceship of the naive 60's?

http://moonmovie.com/images/AS11-40-5922...

(make sure to enlarge in order to really get a good look at American engineering at its finest)

Answer 6

We aren't usually rude we just get annoyed by the morons (not you) that actually think it was fake loading our forum with questions. I try to remane calm and explanetory with people like you, but forgive me if I get angry at the "moon-hoaxers".

The moon landing was most definately staged, and filmed. Where? It was staged on the actual surface of the moon, and filmed there too. We landed on the moon.

One of the incontrovertible pieces of evidence is that the Apollo missions left laser reflectors on the moon... astronomers use those to this day to track the position of the moon. If it wasn't for those, we wouldn't know that the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 2 cm every year.

This isn't an "opinion" this is a "fact". The moon landing is a "fact" because there is "proof". People that think it was faked are "wrong" and many are "ignorant". They get their information from the University of YouTube, not from actual books and trustworthy sources.

Here are some popular conspiracy theories:

THEORY 1: "Why was the flag waving on an airless moon?" When people look at pictures of the flag the US astronauts planted on the moon, they often assume that it is waving because of the ripples in the flag. In a majority of these pictures, the flag isn't waving at all. The flag was folded in the lunar module since take off. The same thing would've happened if they had brought tissue paper with them. Because of their being little gravity, and no air, the crumples didn't even out at all. So it gave the  effect of the flag waving. But why was it standing upright? NASA had specially designed this flag. One of the special parts about it, is that there was a horizontal bar attached to the upper end of the post. This allowed the flag to display the stars and stripes.

Theory 1 refuted.

THEORY 2: "Why were the multiple shadows, when the sun is the only light source on the moon." This is true... the sun is the only light source on the moon. And when you look at the photos, you do often see multiple shadows, The reason behind this is fairly simple. The Apollo lunar module has highly reflective. This is in part because of the sheets of foil that protected the astronauts from radiation. This shot the light in multiple directions, causing the effect of multiple shadows. Now if we were to recreate the Apollo scene in a movie studio today, and we used the most powerful, high intensity light man is capable of producing, we wouldn't create enough light to show only one shadow in a different direction. In order to create the kind of shadows on the moon, we would need to have a light source as intense as the sun... and humans haven't come close to producing one like that. The only way shadows like that could've been produced is by using the sun as the only light source.

But still, why were there multiple shadows? The moon's surface. as you remember, is highly reflective. This shot the sun's light in all different directions. Onto the highly reflective lunar module, and the astronauts space suits. They shot light in even more directions, creating the effect of multiple shadows, even though the only light source was the sun. Because of this, the argument of multiple shadows can't be used to argue that the moon landing was faked.

Theory 2 has been refuted.

THEORY 3: "Why were the no stars visible in the photographs? Shouldn't there be more stars than we can see on Earth because there is no atmosphere?" Actually, there are many stars visible in some photographs, but they are hard to see. But why is this? If you have a digital camera, you can use it, and it is dark and clear outside, do the following:

Go outside, and take a picture of the night sky. Now bring the camera back, and print out the photo. How many stars are visible? Very few. Cameras are designed to pick up very bright lights. The stars are not bright. Your picture doesn't have very many stars in it. But the conditions on the moon were even worse for taking night pictures than in your backyard. The moon's surface, again, is highly reflective. The sun's light was being shot into the lens of the camera, making it even harder to pick up the little light the stars give off. If the moon did have an atmosphere like the Earth's, then there would be no chance of stars being visible. But if you look carefully, there are stars in some of the photos. These photos are found in the later missions. NASA wanted to get some pictures, so they tried to alter their cameras to pick up more stars. This didn't work that well, but they did get some better photos.

The cameras in the 70's weren't that great either. Modern technology would get some better pictures. The cameras weren't BAD but they were nothing compared to modern cameras. Modern cameras could probably get a lot more stars visible in the photographs.

Theory 3 has been refuted. Yet another moon landing "conspiracy theory" has been brought down by science and logic.

Here are some good links:

Answer 7

No.  Anyone who has fallen for this hoax is unworthy of being taken seriously. This is perhaps, after World War II, the most documented event in human history.   By asking this you not only display your lack of intelligence, but you also dishonor the hundreds of thousands of American men and women who worked to bring this dream of the ages to fruition.  Many people lost their lives in furthering this quest. These SIX landings on the moon were the technological triumph of all time.   I will make absolutely no effort to convince you.  "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".

Answer 8

Nope. It was real.

Answer 9

No, it really did happen just like you read about it in the history books.

Answer 10

Not a hoax ==>http://www.clavius.org/

Photo of one manned lunar landing site ==>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.9...

==>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/0...

Answer 11

No.

The "Moon Landing Hoax" is a hoax.

What makes it a hoax is that the people who have launched the latest rumor that the Moon landing was a hoax, know that the Moon landing is not a hoax.  

They only do it to undermine young American's confidence in their own country's abilities.

I am not talking about the earlier attempts, by the original Flat Earth Society, of disproving the possibility that Man could leave Earth -- something which they believed was forbidden by their stubborn -- and flawed -- interpretation of the Scriptures.  They were simply misguided.  Some of them truly believed that one could not go to the Moon because, well, you can't orbit a flat Earth.

I am talking of the recent attempt to prey on the innocence (and, in some cases, gullibility) of those who were not there when it happened.

Once people lose confidence in the "voice of authority" (government, science...), then they are ready to be brainwashed by anyone with a weird idea or religion to sell.  That is what these hoaxers want.

America has often been a fertile soil for various snake-oil salesmen.

Speaking of oil, it is sad to see that the present government administration is probably more responsible for the present drop in confidence in the country's ability.

---

For the Moon landing itself, you need to remember (or be reminded of) the fact that the Soviet Union was well ahead of us in the "space race".  Kennedy, by his famous 1961 speech, described a goal (a manned Moon landing with safe return) that became the "finish line" of the race.

At the time, the Soviets were NOT our best buddies (the Cold War was on; they tried to set up missiles in Cuba to obliterate us, we scared them into spending too much of their budget on Defense leading to the collapse of their economy, and so on).

When Neil took the first "small step for [a] man" in 1969, the Moon was over the Pacific.  The TV signal was available to all the Soviet radio telescopes (and humans have been able to trace the source of radio signals from space since 1931 -- so we are not talking high-tech stuff here).  In fact, our own TV images had to come through a radio telescope in Australia.  Australians got the TV image in their homes 7 seconds before we did.

If the Soviets had had any clue that the landing could have been a hoax, our "cover up" would not even have lasted as long as the TV coverage (never mind 39 years).

Answer 12

No.  

Here is one good reason why.  If it had been faked scientists and engineers in most countries other than the USA would have known immediately.  Especially the Russians who were perfectly capable of tracking the spacecraft on it's way to the Moon by radar.  

In addition thousands of amateur and professional radio experts round the world could have told whether signals were coming from the Moon or not.  

Here are a lot more reasons

http://www.clavius.org/

This is just a money making fraud for people like Bart Sibrel who has been lying about this for several years.

Answer 13

No. d**n disproved conspiracy theories, that are still up for people to read. See source, and search on any search engine: "moonlanding proof"

Answer 14

Yes, because if it wasn't, people wouldn't be able to ask such stupid questions.

Oh come on for pity sake how can people believe c**p like 2012 and disagree with logical, confirmed stuff like the moonlanding?

I get who's in charge of the 2012 and what it's purpose is, but why, WHY the moonlanding?

BTW I never heard anyone questioning Sputnik...

Maybe the Russians had actually created an intra-stellar space probe that observes Cesium fluctuations in the upper stratosphere...

Just a thought anyway...